IMPORTANT POINT
The validity of a sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be challenged at any stage of proceedings, and a fresh sanction does not violate the principle against double jeopardy if the previous sanction was invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.06.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.) Raipur in Special Case No. 4/11 whereby Learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the applicant under the provisions of Section 309 of the CrPC and listed the matter for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

2. Facts of the case in short are that the applicants are employees of Central Government and at the relevant time they were posted as Inspector in the Railway Protection Force, Bilaspur Division. On 08.05.2010 one suspect was taken into custody by the applicant No. 2 in connection with the registration of FIR at Post Pendra, District Bilaspur. The FIR was registered on the allegation of theft regarding railway path with the help of others and the same was sold to Santosh Sahu @ Banty resident of Nagpur Maharashtra. It is also case of the prosecution that the applicants after found that Santosh Sahu was already in custody in connection with same allegation and was in jail at Raipur and the applicants have demanded bribe of Rs. 2 lakhs from brother-in-law of Santosh Sahu namely Nilesh Sahu to protect him. It is also case of the prosecution that the CBI has also recovered money from applicants which they have demanded as bribe from the Nilesh Sahu. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after obtaining sanction from the competent authority on 05.11.2011, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet before the CBI Court, Raipur for commission of offence under Sections 7,13 (1)(d), 13(2) PC Act, 1988 and 120 of the IPC which was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 4 of 2011.

3. The applicants have raised objection regarding legality and property of the sanction granted to the CBI to prosecute the applicants and the same was rejected by CBI Court on 26.02.2013. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicants have preferred criminal Revision which was registered as CRR No. 149 of 2013. This Court on 05.09.2013 has set aside the order and directed the learned trial Court to decide question of validity of sanction after affording an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence relating to the material which found the basis for grant of sanction by the appropriate authority.

4. Thereafter, learned Special Judge CBI, Raipur has allowed the prosecution to examine the evidence with regard to the sanction thereafter the learned Special Judge, CBI Raipur vide order dated 31.07.2017 has dropped the proceedings, by recording its finding that the prosecution has not proved grant of valid sanction against the accused by the sanctioning authority as the authority has not applied its independent mind and dropped the proceedings against the accused. But granted liberty to the prosecution agency to proceed afresh against the accused person after obtaining necessary sanction if so desired.

5. The prosecution has obtained fresh sanction on 17.12.2018 against the accused, thereafter accused has moved an application under Section 309 of the CrPC before the learned Special Judge, Raipur for adjournment of proceedings on 11.04.2019 as well as stopping the proceedings mainly contending that the fresh sanction has been given by the authority without production of any reliable evidence which is based for reconsideration of sanction order on which the trial Court has already given its finding, therefore, continuation of proceeding is contrary to the provisions of law. It has been further contended that the trial Court has already considered the evidence, documents collected by the CBI, as such subsequent sanction is against the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as it amounts to double jeopardize. It has also been contended that once the sanction has been refused/ set aside by the Court it cannot be reviewed unless new material evidence or reason is assigned. It has been further contended that on